“Gibbs not only reminded the press corps that the Pentagon denied the report but used the opportunity to take shots at the British press.

“‘I want to speak generally about some reports I’ve witnessed over the past few years in the British media,’ Gibbs said. ‘In some ways, I’m surprised it filtered down.’

“‘Let’s just say if I wanted to look up, if I wanted to read a write-up of how Manchester United fared last night in the Champions League Cup, I might open up a British newspaper,” he continued. ‘If I was looking for something that bordered on truthful news, I’m not entirely sure it’d be the first pack of clips I’d pick up.'”

“Keller predicted that the Times will be ‘left standing after the deluge.'”

“Commenting on the keep-the-Times alive movement, Keller said: “Saving the New York Times now ranks with saving Darfur as a high-minded cause.””

The comments below the article particularly pick up on the latter remark, many readers angered by what they perceive as Keller’s likening of the New York Times situation with that of the crisis in Darfur. “Talk about delusions. As important as Dafur!” writes ‘CLJ124’.

Commenter ‘Michael Green’ writes: “Some of the comments about this piece miss a point or two. One is that Mr. Keller might have been ironic in referring to saving The Times as the equivalent to saving Darfur.”

Another, ‘Stacy Harris’, writes that it “is likely a poor choice of words that, upon reflection, Keller will regret.” An anonymous commenter, writes that it was a ‘parody’: “Regarding Darfur, Keller said that, considering all of the people who have offered to donate money to keep the Times alive, it appears that at least some people equate saving the Times with saving Darfur.”

Keller is also reported by Politico to have said “If you’re inclined to trust Google as your source for news – Google yourself.”